PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX-2 vs. BHASKAR POWER PROJECTS P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/199/2016HC DelhiDLHC01089876201621 March 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the explanations for the significant delays in filing and re-filing the appeal to be unsatisfactory. The court was not inclined to condone the delays, citing the lack of diligent follow-up by the department.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 1375 days in filing and 1071 days in re-filing. The reasons provided for the delay, including transfer of jurisdiction and change of standing counsel, were not considered satisfactory by the court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the court should condone the inordinate delay in filing and re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department. The court also considered the reasons provided for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not applicable

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 199/2016

Page 1 of 3

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 30 +

ITA 199/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri with Ms.Lakshmi Gurung, Advocates.

versus

BHASKAR POWER PROJECTS P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.B. Jain with Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

21.03.2016

CM APPL No. 10445/2016 (For exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

CM APPL Nos. 10444/2016 (for condonation of 1375 days in filing the appeal), 10446/2016 (for condonation of 1071 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 199/2016

3.

There is an inordinate delay of 1375 days in filing the appeal as well as 1071 days in re-filing the appeal.

4.

In the application (CM NO. 10444/2016) seeking condonation of delay of 1375 days in filing the appeal, it is stated that a certified copy of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 20th February 2009 was received by the Department on 6th April

ITA 199/2016

Page 2 of 3

2009. Initially, the appeal was filed in the High Court of Gujarat on 31st September 2011. However, it transpires that on 18th August 2011 itself the case had been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi and, therefore, an appeal had to be filed in this Court. Ultimately, the Commissioner of Income Tax at Valsad in Gujarat wrote to his counterpart in Delhi on 9th July 2012 advising him to file the appeal in this Court. Notwithstanding the said letter, the present appeal was filed only on 10th May 2013. The delay between 9th July 2012 and 10th May 2013 in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained in this application. All that is said is that in the aforesaid process ‘delay has occurred’.

5.

Consequently, the Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

6.

As far as the application for condoning the delay of 1071 days in re- filing is concerned (CM No. 10446/2016), the Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding change of Standing counsel for the Department. This does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.

7.

The second is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court

ITA 199/2016

Page 3 of 3

pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. Sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of almost three years.

8.

The applications bearing CM No. 10444/2016 for condonation of delay of 1375 days in filing the appeal and CM No. 10446/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1071 days in re-filing the appeal are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 21, 2016 Rk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →